—English proverb
“When you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back at you”
—African saying
It is no longer news. The
relationship between former president Olusegun Obasanjo, and his
political godson, the incumbent, President Goodluck Jonathan has finally
hit the rocks. The “father” and “son” bond that had held the two
political players together in the last few years had reached a breaking
point. It hit an all time low recently and finally snapped with the
godfather’s open and scathing criticism of President Jonathan’s
administration and leadership style. That an acrimonious epilogue would
eventually signal a denouement of a pact fated to end in tragedy is
nothing unusual; in politics, especially in our country, coalitions and
friendship among politicians are not always scripted to your storybook,
fairytale, happy ever-after ending. This democracy is replete with tales
of political alliances that have gone sour as soon as they began.
The saying that in politics “no
permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests” can best describe
the cat and mouse liaisons that have often defined association among
politicians. Examples abound of godsons who had turned the tables
against their godfathers. Nigerians have lost count of governors and
their deputies who had become sworn enemies. We had seen bitter rivalry
between a president and his deputy culminating in the latter being
arbitrarily stripped of his constitutional duties by his overbearing
principal. Deputy Governors have been locked out of their offices or
official quarters. In some cases, politicians have come short of
exchanging blows to settle differences. That is one of the many
absurdities of this democracy.
In Nigeria, political unions are not
built to last. Trust, which is a desirable quality in other climes, is a
virtue of the naive. Politicians often put their heart where their
mouth is. But the former president had it coming. If he had expected
that the union between him and President Jonathan would remain the one
of the strict headmaster and his submissive pupil, it is either he
over-estimated the sense of his own worth years after leaving office;
has no sense of history; or that he has lost touch with the intrigues of
power play in his party too soon. The signs of a strained relationship
broke out in the open with Obasanjo’s open criticism of the incumbent’s
handling of the Boko Haram crisis. He went short of calling the
President weak in the face of rampaging Islamists who are poised to
ensure that Nigeria becomes another Somalia. He reminisced on his
controversial handling of similar threats to national security during
his time as president. The invasion of Odi in Bayelsa and Zaki Biam in
Benue states where entire villages were left in ruins when the former
president used maximum force to suppress insurgencies by militants stand
out.
The former president had also lampooned
President Jonathan’s fight against corruption. He lamented what he
called a lacklustre approach to the scourge by this government. Obasanjo
also took a swipe at his party, the Peoples Democratic Party, which he
said lacked the discipline of a ruling party. Of all the criticisms
levelled against President Jonathan by his former mentor, it was his
warning of a revolution that has hit close to home. The former president
had responded to the frightening rate of unemployment among Nigerian
youths as a possible trigger for a revolution in the country.
In fairness to the President, since
Obasanjo began an open criticism of his government, he has refrained
from engaging him in an open verbal war. To underscore his determination
not to engage the former president publicly, he reportedly threatened
to sack any of his aides who is found to “abuse” Obasanjo. Perhaps,
President Jonathan’s refusal to engage Obasanjo is borne out of the
recognition of the role he played in his “grass to grace” emergence as
Nigeria’s number one citizen. The former President and the incumbent
path crossed in 2006. Obasanjo was on his way out after a two-term
Presidency. The outgoing president was shopping for a possible
replacement among the politicians who showed interest in succeeding
him. Then came the December 2006 National Convention of the PDP; the
late President Umaru Yar’Adua had just emerged as the party’s
presidential candidate, flooring the likes of Peter Odili, Jerry Gana
and host of other big names. Obasanjo, had through the instrument of
state, cowed those who wanted to run against his preferred candidates,
and somehow, railroaded the convention into electing Yar’Adua. Jonathan,
with Obasanjo’s backing, emerged as Yar’Adua’s running mate. The former
president also stood his ground in the 2011 general elections. Against a
massive Northern opposition, he insisted that Jonathan would fly the
flag of the party for the election. The emergence of Jonathan caused
massive uproar in the North. Such is the benefactor role of Obasanjo in
the political life of Jonathan.
Therefore, if the President has not
engaged Obasanjo in an open confrontation, it is because he recognises
the role the former has played in his fairytale political trajectory.
But the President’s first reaction to Obasanjo’s criticism of his
administration came in his media chat recently. He condemned the
invasion of Odi and Zaki Biam by Obasanjo. Many have also alleged to a
surreptitious move by the Presidency to fight back and weaken Obasanjo’s
hold on the President. This move began with the alleged shoving off of
Obasanjo as the chairman of the party’s Board of Trustees. The feud
between the two political heavyweights has also been allegedly linked to
the politics of 2015.
But let’s even for once look beyond the
motives and political undertones of the dispute between these two men.
An assessment of the merits and demerits of the tenures of both leaders
will throw up some differences and similarities. Is Obasanjo’s
criticism of Jonathan justified? There is no denying the fact that this
administration has largely been a failure especially in areas such as
the fight against corruption, the rising debt profile, the sickening
culture of waste in government circles, insecurity, decaying
infrastructure, power and rising poverty rate. But did Obasanjo fare any
better in his time? President Jonathan can at least be credited with
providing a level-playing field in ensuring free and fair elections so
far. Obasanjo as leader trampled on the rule of law and practised a
“do-or-die” brand of politics that violently rigged elections. Was the
PDP more disciplined under Obasanjo? The former president did however
score fair points in his fight against corruption. But many have also
blamed him for using the anti-corruption agency to settle personal
scores. One fact remains, Obasanjo’s eight years was largely a
disappointment. Just like Jonathan, he had the goodwill and resources to
radically transform the country but he sadly lost the opportunity; he
failed to envision his place in history and acted as if there was no
tomorrow. The former president should also be blamed for the lack of
leadership and stagnation that began in 2007. Out of an egotistical
agenda and the quest to preserve his own self-seeking legacy, he imposed
on the country a reign of lacklustre and inept leaders who have ensured
that our country will never rise above the mediocrity of the
administrations he helped install. Rather than engage in self-seeking
rhetoric with the incumbent, Obasanjo should apologise to Nigerians for
the inglorious role he played in our current predicament.
Punch Nigeria
No comments:
Post a Comment